I have copied my comments to the LACRALO discuss list for full and complete disclosure. Like all of you, I am very keen to have more participation. But my preference is for informed participation! This requires work....and attention....not just to the vote but before the vote. Carlton ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FWIW, I share the fundamental concerns outlined here by Alan. I have already outlined on this or other public list my own perceptions of what is important in deciding the At-Large Board seat; it begins with a thorough understanding of the role of the Board and the way Boards work in practice, followed by defining criteria fit to purpose of selecting candidates who are themselves fit for purpose.
From my working experience, it is highly desirable that all other things being equal, a Board member must have the wherewithal and room to shape decisions, even if your principal position is itself untenable or does not enjoy majority support.
I know from experience that we have a fairly sizeable contingent of likely voters who tend to a more visceral decision-making routine; this is the stuff of the "heart" that was so ably encapsulated in argument this morning by Christopher Wilkinson. While I do not wish a "gamed" system, Tricia Drake's very sensible proposal for a hybrid voting system has some appeal for me because it gives us an opportunity to embrace the votes of the "heart" as well as those of the "head". And it also advances the idea I particularly share with Alan; the presumption that the vote is fair. I am also cheered that the Bigpulse expert thinks implementing a hybrid mechanism that addresses the issues I see is doable and in the short term. Carlton ================================================================================= On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:46 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
One of the issues that we must address in determining the overall process governing the selection of the At-Large Board Director is the adoption of a voting mechanism.
It has been suggested that we use the Instant-Runoff voting as called for in our Rules of Procedure for other elections. I disagree (in fact I disagree that we should use it in the other elections, but that is not the subject of this discussion).
I will present several separate arguments.
First, I believe that the process is difficult for many people to get their mind around, unless they are VERY used to this process. With an Instant Runoff ballot, you need to rank the candidates in your order of preference. That sounds easy, but understanding HOW the votes will be ranked makes it a lot more difficult. Here is what you need to do:
1. To fill the first ballot position, put in the candidate that you want to win. That is easy. 2. To fill the second candidate position, assume that the candidate that you put in above actually comes in dead last - who would you want to win in that case. 3. To fill the third slot, assume that the after your first candidate came in dead last and was eliminated, your next choice above also came in dead last in the next round. and so forth.
I believe that the above process is very hard for people to actually think through. It is difficult to select the 2nd and 3rd candidate, having to accept that the candidate(s) that you REALLY want to win will come in at the bottom of the poll each time.
Second, if you look at the current Bylaws for the election of the GNSO and ccNSO Directors, you will find:
GNSO: ... any such selection must have affirmative votes compromising sixty percent (60%) of all the respective voting House members.
ccNSO: ... any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office.
Aside from the nicety of having a process which is in line with these two very visible ICANN bodies, I think that it is CRUCIALLY important that everyone and especially the other Board members know that the person put on the Board by At-Large was consciously and actively voted for by at least a majority of those eligible to vote. I do not believe that an Instant Runoff meets these criteria.
Third, the Instant Runoff voting method is convenient, but to quote Robert's Rules of Order, one of the authorities on such procedural matters:
"...especially useful and fair in an election by mail if it is impractical to take more than one ballot. . . . In such cases it makes possible a more representative result than that under a rule that a plurality shall elect. . . . Preferential voting has many variations. [Instant runoff voting is the example given.] ...Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting [the exhaustive ballot system], because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice."
In the case of the vote for At-Large Director, we are NOT under a particularly tight time constraint and we could allow for runoff ballots. Such runoffs not only allow a person to make an enlightened choice in the sure knowledge that their original choice has been disqualified, but ensures that the final choice was THE candidate selected by the majority (or more if we wish) of the voters in the final round.
=============================
There will be a presentation and discussion of this at our teleconference - https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?7_december_2009_community_call_at_l....
You can find more information on Instant Runoffs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff. Note that the link within our Rules of Procedure is incorrect.
Alan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac